On Jul 20, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:38 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>> The reason nobody answered this question is because we are still
>>> debating how to accept code that is both GPLv2 and ASLv2 compatible.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure that's the issue exactly - I think it's about dual
>> licensing.
>>
>
> No it is not. That would create all kinds of trouble for us to
> track who
> contributed what under which terms. This really is just about
> coming up
> with a simple default contribution policy that is acceptable to
> all. As
> Leo explained so graphically people don't want lists of options or
> difficult decision diagrams. We want to provide a simple contribution
> policy that gets us in a situation that all contributed code is ASLv2
> and GPLv2 compatible by default. Then there is no confusion or need to
> track things (except of course the FSF/ASF individual/company
> contribution/disclaimer paperwork).
But we don't host code at the ASF that's under other licenses except
in extreme situations, and I'm not convinced that we're there yet.
>
> We could do that by asking every contribution to be dual licensed
> GPL/ASL, but that might be too confusing to some. So I propose we just
> pick MIT/X for now and be done with it. (Or any other option I
> mentioned
> in a couple of mails if you really don't like MIT/X.)
>
I believe that your only problem with ALv2 are the patent termination
clauses, right?
I have an idea, but need to do a bit of homework - back in a few
hours with it...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org